Arkansas v. Mississippi
Headline: Court orders commission to mark Arkansas–Mississippi border, holds river boundary remains the historic middle channel and appoints surveyors to map the pre-1848 channel after a major river avulsion.
Holding: The Court decided the state boundary stays in the middle of the Mississippi River’s former main channel as it existed before the 1848 avulsion, and it appointed a three-person commission to locate and report that line.
- Requires a three-person commission to survey and mark the historic river boundary.
- Commission can take sworn evidence, compel witnesses, and report physical changes.
- Report due October 1, 1920; Clerk to notify both state governors and commissioners.
Summary
Background
The governments of Arkansas and Mississippi asked the Court to settle where their boundary runs along the Mississippi River. The dispute focuses on a change in the river around 1848 that created a new main channel. The Court reviewed earlier filings and an opinion it delivered May 19, 1919, and the parties asked the Court to appoint experts to run and mark the disputed line on the ground.
Reasoning
The Court decided the legal boundary is the middle of the river’s main navigable channel as it existed at the 1783 Treaty of Peace, subject only to natural, gradual changes since then. The Court held that the 1848 avulsion — a sudden change that created a new channel — did not move the boundary. Because the old channel ceased to be the main route, the Court directed that the boundary be located along the middle of the former main channel as it ran immediately before the avulsion.
Real world impact
To implement the ruling the Court appointed a three-person commission of named surveyors and set detailed duties. The commission must be sworn, examine the territory, review the case record, take sworn evidence with notice to the states, and preserve and return evidence with a report. If the line cannot be located with reasonable certainty, the commission must describe erosions, accretions, and other changes and state the factual basis for its conclusions. The report was ordered by October 1, 1920, and the Court reserved other matters until that return.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?